[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161030142246.od5skjzegyp62hma@localhost>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 14:22:46 +0000
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, lorenzo.pieralisi@....com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
peterz@...radead.org, broonie@...nel.org, will.deacon@....com,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, robh+dt@...nel.org, sudeep.holla@....com,
linux@....linux.org.uk, morten.rasmussen@....com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 REPOST 0/9] CPUs capacity information for
heterogeneous systems
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 04:46:41PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote:
> I'm thus now assuming that everybody is OK with the patches and that they can
> be queued for 4.10 (we certainly need this plumbing at this point). Please
> speak if my assumption is wrong (and provide feedback! :).
> Otherwise I'm going to:
>
> - use Russell's patching system for patches 2 and 8
> - ask Sudeep to pull patches 3,5,6 and 7
> - ask Catalin/Will to pull patches 1,4 and 9
I'm happy to queue patches 1, 4 and 9 for 4.10 (though it might have
been easier for the whole series to go through arm-soc).
> Do you think we might get into trouble splitting the merge process this way?
Probably not. The only minor downside is that I have to grab a new DT
for Juno from Sudeep to test the patches. Not an issue, though.
--
Catalin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists